Admiral Begs Congress to Limit Defense Cuts

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon's top civilian and military leaders implored Congress on Wednesday not to cut too deeply into military spending, plunging into a heated political debate over how to curtail defense costs without imperiling U.S. strategic interests at a time the military is fighting two wars.

"We shrink from our global security responsibilities at our peril," Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the House Armed Services Committee. "Retrenchment brought about by short-sighted cuts could well lead to costlier and more tragic consequences later -- indeed as they always have in the past."

Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are trying to strike a balance between constraining future defense budgets as part of a government-wide effort to reduce budget deficits and preserving U.S. military power. One of the more controversial elements of the administration' proposed 2012 budget is a plan to reduce the size of the Army and Marine Corps starting in 2015.

Gates said the Pentagon is asking for $553 billion for the budget year that begins Oct. 1, plus $118 billion in war costs. He also is asserting that the Pentagon will face a crisis if the Congress does not pass a new defense budget for the current year or passes one with significantly reduced funding. So far this year the Pentagon has been required to operate on last year's budget. He said the Pentagon can get by with as little as $540 billion this year.

The committee chairman, Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., told Gates and Mullen that it is premature to be reducing the size of the Army and Marine Corps.

"I cannot in good conscience ask them to do more with less," McKeon said.

Marshaling his counter-argument, Gates told the panel that the Army and Marine Corps can be reduced "with minimal risk," given that far fewer troops will be deployed abroad when forces are drawn down from war zones. He said that one year ago 190,000 troops were stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan, and that by the end of this year the total will be slightly below 100,000. That will mean more time at home between overseas deployments for much of the force, Gates added.

Noting also that the reductions would not start until 2015, Gates said the date is far enough in the future to enable the Pentagon to adjust if circumstances change.

In his testimony, Mullen said he supported the administration's controversial proposal to increase some health care costs for working-age military retirees. He called the increases "modest and manageable," and noted that the heads of all the armed services support the proposed increases.

Mullen also said it would be a mistake to reduce U.S. military aid to Egypt in the aftermath of its revolution.

[jd2408]

We spend more than all nations combined on our Defense Department. The American citizens have paid the price for that. The EU has already had talks about forming their own military. I am no expert but don't see any reason why Europe can't build their own defense. I had no idea until recent events that our government gives $ 1 Billion dollars per year for the Egyptian military. All this military spending is just plain insanity and others here are right when they say we are no safer. I wonder if we aren't even worse off.

[lucifersshadow]

The military is to big, and we do not need to be the world police, that is what the UN is for. If we spend all our money on the military, and the nation goes broke, what does that do to our "national security"?
We are not the world baby-sitters, we need to butt out of other nation's business when we cannot even keep our own house in order. We send money to dictators, and then complain about other countries not being "democratic". Without a strong UN, the chances of WWIII increase substantially, and the clowns in Washington seem to be doing our best to get us there. Why do we need troops in Germany? Can't they defend themselves? Look for "Ron Paul's Full Speech at CPAC 2011" on the internet . . . see what Ron Paul has to say about this madness.

[Cheese_Wonton]

Here's an idea. The nation was never intended to have a full time national army. Memories of the Redcoats and their abuses of civil liberties were still too fresh. Instead, the nation was to be defended by state militias in time of war, war declared by Congress, and the President then and only then became Commander in Chief for the sole purpose of provide unity of command for the many state militias. Outside of wartime, military expenditures were minimum to sustain a part time militia. Our Constitution expressly requires Congress to reauthorize any army every two years mimimum, the thinking being that a war wouldn't last much longer than this and no right thinking Congress wanted a standing army around in peace time sponging up tax money and threatening civil liberties
The Navy, meanwhile, was a full time force intended to defend US commerce abroad in concert with the Marines, and no time limit is placed on their funding in the Constitution since navies are not a traditional threat to freedom at home the way an army is.
We could reproduce this today, converting the great bulk of the active Army to National Guard units of part time soldiers and use a proportion of the money saved on active duty payrolls to address all of the many equipment shortfalls we have today. No President would have an army on hand to send off into some undeclared war. The only way for a President to access a land army would be to convince Congress to declare war, fund that war, and free the state militias for Federal service.
This will curtail presidential adventures and save us money while allowing us to build a strong force for an occasion when we genuinely do have to fight for our national survival.
Just a thought,you can flame away if you wish.
Btw, I'm a DoD analyst and shake my head at the money we spend on weapons. I see a helicopter firing eight missiles at an enemy, each of which cost as much as the most expensive Porsche, and wonder how we can keep this up without going bankrupt like the Soviets did.

[RedWings_ninety_one]

Right, limit them to be enough to defend our country...and not the war.

[cepe10-2009]

Republican Mike Mullen needs to explain why with all our allies we need to spend 10 times what any other country does on national defense. He is thinking of the defense contractor cronys and their stealing of the US tax dollars more than the citizens. $500 Billion tax dollars every year, talk about socialism...

[Uncle_Eccoli]

I'm not buying it, not for a second. $553B plus a war budget? There are plenty of cuts to be made, amounting to a mountain of money, that won't affect security in any real, measurable way.

National security is of paramount importance, of course, but there's a big difference between real security and perceived security. The era of military entitlement and excess must end.

[Henri_Rochard]

The U.S. Military has $billions$ and $billions$ of dollars of fancy spy planes, nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines, stealth bombers, smart bombs and missiles, Generals and Admirals, etc., etc...

But some fanatic can either carry a gun onto a military base IN THIS COUNTRY, or else strap a WMD into his burqa and kill any number of people.

The U.S. Military totally misspends the hard-earned money provided by U.S. Taxpayers. The U.S. Military probably wastes more money than it intelligently spends.

[Uncle_Eccoli]

I agree, but men don't wear burqas.

[tsigili]

It is so amusing to see government wanting to cut defense, when world strife is so high.

That could actually be considered suicide, for the country.

[retiredgustav]

Then you must be in favor of increasing taxes to pay for the military industrial complex which currently consumes 60%+ of the general fund.